Taco John brought us THIS THREAD earlier today, and I don't want clutter a 5th Amendment thread with a general discussion.

So let's discuss net neutrality.

What is it?

Quote:

When dealing with any form of network, be it telephone service, cable television or the Internet, there is often a business philosophy called network neutrality at work. When dealing specifically with Internet issues, the term is usually shortened to net neutrality, but the basic principles are still the same. Net neutrality refers to the non-discriminatory nature of essential Internet components such as servers, ISPs and transmission lines. In the eyes of an idealized Internet, all users have the right to send and receive packets of information equally. The principle of net neutrality makes this possible. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-net-neutrality.htm

Basically, it comes down to one evil or the other. On one hand, we have the government step in to regulate and "enforce" net neutrality via the FCC. While the FCC currently doesn't have the authority to do so, they are working with legislators to introduce a bill to expand their authority.

On the other hand, we have the current situation which is where the Telecommunications industry has control of the product they supply, and they theoretically allow open and unfettered access to all web traffic.

So far, we've had a few instances of Telcos shaping traffic of heavy bit torrent users, which was only found out after subscribers became suspicious and investigated it for themselves. Most ISPs, in their user agreements, state their right to limit access or shape traffic should they deem your use derogatory to their network.

So where do you come down on this? Government involvement or status quo?

IMO, thus far we're talking about solving yet to be seen problem with preemptive government intervention. While i'm not a fan of the theoretical restrictions that could be placed on internet traffic by ISPs, it thus far seems to be the lesser of two evils for a couple reasons. 1) most people have at least two choices for internet access (yes, i realize that not everyone does, even in metropolitan areas), and that number should continue to expand with technological development; 2) there are a couple of ways to get to sites should your ISP decide that you don't need to visit those sites (TOR and Haystack are a couple currently available options).

I'll feel like waking up and exiting the fantasy nightmare that will never happen.

When the Internet started, we were on 14.4 baud. It didn't stay like that forever. You'd be a fool to think that Satellite internet is at it's zenith.

I WELCOME cable providers to jerk with their business models. When they start doing stuff like that, smart people get to work and make these folks irrelevant.

Cable internet is not the end all be all of internet connection. We're still in the infancy of all of this. The last thing I want to see happen is for the government to stifle innovation - such as what Google Fiber is doing - by demonstrating that they're willing to regulatory capture these industries and make innovation in this realm unattractive.

The only way government will stifle innovation is if they **** with what is already working and the FCC pass this stupid regulation.

And I am curious like hcf in regards to why you think Google Fiber is bad. IMO it looks like the free market at work, they can afford to run the lines and build the infrastructure.

I think he's saying Google Fiber is innovation that too much government regulation might stifle.

Liberals seem to very anti regulation on net. But cannot get enough regulation on other things. Confusing group. One would thing if Govt controlled it we could ensure underserved peoples will be better taken care of.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

I wouldnt say they are bad, but one must be also aware that they monetize your information. Google already has a lot of info on people's lives, and google fiber will allow them to aggregate even more.

So, they make a profit. Like when you subscribe to a magazine your name can be sold to direct mail companies. They just have more ways to collect information but no more than other service providers if they wanted to aggregate the information?

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti- blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner from 2001 to 2011...wrote a blog post titled, "The Buck Stops At The FCC," calling upon the commission to "reclassify broadband as 'telecommunications' under Title II of the Communications Act." The effect of that move would be to designate Internet service providers as "common carriers," making them subject to increased FCC regulation.

Such a move would bring fierce opposition from telecommunications companies and their friends in Congress. But the FCC's previous failure to reclassify broadband blew up in its face when a court ruled that that the agency couldn't impose anti-blocking and anti-discrimination regulations on ISPs because they aren't classified as common carriers.

"The good news is that the solution is pretty simple," Copps wrote. "It doesn’t require a new telecommunications statute replete with time-consuming years of legislative horse-trading and special interest lobbying. All it requires is an FCC big enough to own up to its previous mistakes and courageous enough to put our communications future back on track."

I'll feel like waking up and exiting the fantasy nightmare that will never happen.

When the Internet started, we were on 14.4 baud. It didn't stay like that forever. You'd be a fool to think that Satellite internet is at it's zenith.

I WELCOME cable providers to jerk with their business models. When they start doing stuff like that, smart people get to work and make these folks irrelevant.

Cable internet is not the end all be all of internet connection. We're still in the infancy of all of this. The last thing I want to see happen is for the government to stifle innovation - such as what Google Fiber is doing - by demonstrating that they're willing to regulatory capture these industries and make innovation in this realm unattractive.

So what you are saying is that only the big companies should be milked for both their connection to the Internet and then access to end users on the Internet. While little guys like you should get a free ride because you are a poor little site? There is administrative overhead involved in monitoring how much data is going to even the small sites for each ISP, and someone should pay for it, so why not you? I mean, you are the one that needs access to their users.

There are some projects being done by google and some others with lower flying aircraft/balloons to offer internet access, but the biggest problem with satellites is latency.

This is a VERY tough issue for a tech person like myself. We tend to be anarchists when it comes to anything that threatens to "control" the internet. The problem is... you are looking at two competing "evils" in big business and govt.

In a perfect world you'd have a minimal set of laws that are there solely to ensure that there is always room for more competition in the market. That would act as a check on big business abuses. I'm not at all sure how this would work though because you are dealing with so many different govt entities from the Federal all the way down to the municipal level.

I work for the largest ISP (by certain measures, it's somewhat subjective) in the world and it's STILL a tough issue for me.

Certainly, nobody wants their ISP to hamper traffic in an effort to boost their own profile.

However, there's just no way I could ever agree with allowing the government to step in an regulate it. They call it "neutrality" and it's anything but.

So what you are saying is that only the big companies should be milked for both their connection to the Internet and then access to end users on the Internet. While little guys like you should get a free ride because you are a poor little site? There is administrative overhead involved in monitoring how much data is going to even the small sites for each ISP, and someone should pay for it, so why not you? I mean, you are the one that needs access to their users.